The Smallest Minority: Well, We've Flipped James Kelly's Rock Over . . .

The Smallest Minority: Well, We've Flipped James Kelly's Rock Over . . .


Kevin Baker at "The Smallest Minority" has posted (on Monday, December 20, 2010) another brilliant überpost on the Second Amendment.

Posited as a definitive statement of the superiority of "facts" vs "studies", Kevin lends credence to his ongoing battle against those who assume that by citing the opinions of people who agree with them, they can prove the basic fallacy of the Second Amendment.

That fallacy is, of course, "Fewer Guns, Less Crime". Anyone who has ever been mugged recognizes this fallacy intuitively; people who have been arrested, of course, tend to argue vociferously in its favor.

One of the most telling collections of historical fact is found near the end of Kevin's article, where he links in the phrase: "Arms in the hands of Jews are a danger to public safety." This is an article by Stephen Holbrook (Second Amendment & Guns Rights attorney; filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court re: MACDONALD; see here, and here [1999 Emerson case?; name spelled alternately "Halbook"], and here, et al) . It's worth reading that singular document, of course, but I encourage you to read the entire original blog article (see the link at the top of the page).

It is because of the determined research behind EVERY article Kevin writes that I encourage you to "read the whole thing", of course.

And this is also the reason why nearly every time I link to Kevin's writing (even though I too-often refer to him as "Kevin Bacon" ... not true!) I usually include the admonishment:

"Kevin is a much better writer than, I am; if you must choose between reading "The Smallest Minority" or "Cogito Ergo Geek", I strongly encourage you to read Kevin's offerings."

My work is infrequently offered, minor key, and desultory. Kevin is consistent, better researched, and much more readable ... although we both tend to over-write.

On the other hand, I'm grateful to Kevin because he not only writes articles which I delight in reading, but he makes important points in a much more convincing manner.

Besides that, he says the things I wish I had said, in a style which I wish I could at least emulate; and he saves me a lot of time, because I don't have to invest as much effort and research to present it.

Thanks again, Kevin.


---

INCIDENTALLY ...
.. if you liked the above, but wonder about the philosophical basis for Kevin's position statement, then I draw your attention to his (Saturday, December 18, 2010) überpost "This I Believe". As usual, I stand in awe in joining you by wishing I had said that.

There may be minor doctrinal issues with which you may take exception. If so, I wish you would say so in the COMMENTS section (or better, in Kevin's COMMENTS section ... although he, like me, suffers from the slings and arrows of outrageous ECHO commenting software so it may be lost forever). However, in my first reading I find little or nothing to contest.

Although, of course, I would probably not have said it half so well.

Consider this a juicy dessert following a meaty main course.

All we need now is a dessert wine. On the other hand, I have always found them to be too sweet, so perhaps that may not be to your taste either.